Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2737 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 year(s) 10 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
08-05-2022
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
PartlyAllowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
02-07-2017
Judgement Text
आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायप ु र मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAMLAPPA D BATTULL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 210/RPR/2017 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sanjeev Das, Anthena-C/2503, Rustomjee Urbania Near Majiwada Mac donald, Eastern Express Highway, Majiwada, Thane (W)-400 601 PAN : ADSPD4477F .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Raipur (C.G.) ......Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by :Shri S.R. Rao, AR Revenue by :Shri P.K. Mishra, DR 2 Sanjeeb Das Rustomjee Urbania Vs. The DCIT, ITA No. 210/RPR/2017 स ु नवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 05.04.2022 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 09.05.2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT (Appeals)-3, Bhopal, dated 30.05.2017, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 153A r.w.s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 17.03.2015 for assessment year 2013-14. Before us the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,60,050/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer as unexplained cash found during search u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating facts of the case in their entirety. 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is bad in law and on facts. 3. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend, omit all or any of the grounds of appeal with permission of the Hon’ble appellate authority.” 2. Search and seizure proceedings were conducted on 10.10.2012 at the various premises of Topworth Group entities, 3 Sanjeeb Das Rustomjee Urbania Vs. The DCIT, ITA No. 210/RPR/2017 and the residential premises of the assessee who was employed as an Associate Vice President (Finance) with one of the group concern, viz. Akshata Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. was also covered. During the course of the search proceedings conducted at the residential premises of the assessee, cash amounting to Rs.2,60,050/- was found, as under: However, no part of the aforesaid cash found in the possession of the assessee was seized in the course of search proceedings. 3. Notice u/s.153A of the Act, dated 02.02.2015 was issued to the assessee, therein calling upon him to file his return of income for assessment year(s) 2006-07 to 2012-13. In Premise Cash Found Residence at 703/D, Atlas Lodha Paradise, Near Majiwada Flyover, Thane, West Maharashtra Rs. 4,080/- Residence at Anthena, C/2503, Rustomjee, Near Lodha Paradise, Majiwada, Thane (West) Rs.2,55,970/- 4 Sanjeeb Das Rustomjee Urbania Vs. The DCIT, ITA No. 210/RPR/2017 compliance, the assessee filed his returns of income for the aforementioned years, as under: AY Income as per ITR filed u/s.139 Income as per ITR filed u/s.153A Date of filing of return by the assessee against notice u/s.153A Additional income offered in ITR 153A Income voluntarily disclosed before the Investigation Wing Variation, if any Details of tax paid on additional income offered (1) (2) (3) (4)=(3)-(2) (5) (6)=(5)-(4) (7) 2007-08 2,08,400 209,164 12.05.2015 764 - 764 892 2008-09 3,57,900 3,89,121 12.05.2015 31,221 - 31,221 18060 2009-10 5,42,420 5,42,987 02.09.2014 567 - 567 Adjusted against refund 2010-11 5,34,900 5,36,908 02.09.2014 2008 - 2008 410 2011-12 17,54,161 17,54,161 02.09.2014 - - - - 2012-13 12,02,417 13,43,556 02.09.2014 1,41,139 - 1,41,139 Adjusted against refund The assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration, i.e., A.Y.2013-14 on 12.03.2015, declaring an income of Rs.18,80,887/-. Observing, that the assessee had failed to explain the “nature” and “source” of the cash amounting to Rs.2,60,050/- (supra) that was found in the course of search proceedings from his residential premises, the AO held the same as unexplained and added it to the returned income of the assessee. 5 Sanjeeb Das Rustomjee Urbania Vs. The DCIT, ITA No. 210/RPR/2017 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without any success. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. Controversy involved in the present appeal hinges around the treating of cash amounting to Rs.2,60,050/- found in the course of the search proceedings at the residential premises of the assesee as unexplained by the lower authorities. As is discernible from orders of the lower authorities, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assessee in the course of the proceedings before lower authorities, had failed to come forth with any explanation as regards the cash amounting to Rs.2,60,050/- (supra) that was found from his residential premises during the course of search proceedings. 6 Sanjeeb Das Rustomjee Urbania Vs. The DCIT, ITA No. 210/RPR/2017 7. Before us, it was submitted by the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee that the assessee who is a qualified chartered accountant, had over the years been working as an Associate Vice-President (finance) with M/s. Akshata Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., i.e., a Topworth Group Entity. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that considering the social status of the assessee and his professional background, no adverse inferences as regards availability of cash amounting to Rs.2,60,050/- that was found from his residential premises in the course of search proceedings could have been drawn. It was the claim of the Ld. AR that as the assessee is regularly being assessed to tax and during the relevant year and a period prior thereto had disclosed substantial amount of income in his respective returns of income, therefore, availability of the aforementioned cash could safely be related to his accumulated savings and also, the duly disclosed income for the year under consideration. On the basis of his aforesaid contentions, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the order passed by the 7 Sanjeeb Das Rustomjee Urbania Vs. The DCIT, ITA No. 210/RPR/2017 CIT(Appeals) upholding the addition made by the AO could not be sustained and was liable to be vacated. 8. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. DR that as the assessee had failed to come forth with any explanation as regards the “nature” and “source” of the aforesaid amount of cash of Rs.2,60,050/- that was found in the course of the search proceedings from his residential premises, therefore, the lower authorities rightly holding the same as his unexplained money had added it to his returned income. 9. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case in the backdrop of the contentions advanced by the Ld. AR, we find some substance in the claim of the Ld. AR. Admittedly, as per the settled position of law, where an assessee is found to be the owner of any money, then, the onus is cast upon him to explain the “nature” and “source” of acquisition of 8 Sanjeeb Das Rustomjee Urbania Vs. The DCIT, ITA No. 210/RPR/2017 the same. Although, the assessee had failed to put forth any explanation as regards the “nature” and “source” of the aforesaid cash amounting to Rs. 2,60,050/- (supra) that was found in the course of the search proceedings from his residential premises, however, as stated by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, we cannot remain oblivious about availability of funds by way of accumulated past savings with the assessee, specifically considering his professional status. On a perusal of the records we find that the assessee who was employed as an Associate Vice-President (Finance) with M/s. Akshata Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. had in the immediately last two years, i.e., AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 returned an income of Rs.17.54 lacs and 12.02 lacs, respectively. Considering the totality of facts involved in the case before us, we are of the considered view that the factum of availability of accumulated savings generated over the years with the assessee cannot be ruled out. At this stage, we may herein observe, that the fact that no incriminating material, i.e, any such document evidencing 9 Sanjeeb Das Rustomjee Urbania Vs. The DCIT, ITA No. 210/RPR/2017 undisclosed income or undisclosed investment or unexplained expenditure of the assessee having surfaced during the course of search proceedings further lends credence to the claim of the ld. AR that the cash amounting to Rs. 2,60,050/- (supra) could not have been held as unexplained money. At the same time, we cannot also remain oblivious of the fact that the assessee had failed to come forth with any explanation as regards the ‘nature’ and ‘source’ of the aforesaid amount of cash of 2,60,050/- (supra) before the lower authorities. On the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that the availability of accumulated savings generated over the years with the assessee, in all fairness, can safely be taken at one lac rupees. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations direct the AO to restrict the addition to an amount of Rs. 1,60,050/- (out of Rs. 2,60,050/-). 10. Resultantly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is modified in terms of our aforesaid observations. 10 Sanjeeb Das Rustomjee Urbania Vs. The DCIT, ITA No. 210/RPR/2017 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 09 th day of May, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- JAMLAPPA D BATTULL RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायप ु र/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 09 th May, 2022 SB आदेशकȧĤǓतͧलͪपअĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-3, Bhopal 4. The Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध,आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,रायप ु र बɅच, रायप ु र / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. गाड[फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशान ु सार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Ǔनजी सͬचव / Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायप ु र / ITAT, Raipur. 11 Sanjeeb Das Rustomjee Urbania Vs. The DCIT, ITA No. 210/RPR/2017 Date 1 Draft dictated on 29.04.2022 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 01.05.2022 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed before the second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by second Member AM/JM 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order
